D&D 5E Why do you multiclass?

[Maxperson]

Most multi-class makes you weaker and more flexible, not stronger. It takes optimization just to put multi-class on par with a single class.

"Multi-class to to maximize" doesn't really work. It's "single class to maximize".


Unless you want to maximize skills. Then a half-elf rogue/warlock/knowledge cleric/bard is the way to go.

Or you want to maximize versatility. DPR isn't the only way to gauge strength.

 

[pukunui]

I can't remember the last time I played a single-classed character. I tend to favour multiclassing for both story and mechanical reasons. Usually it's story first - I have a particular concept in mind that I don't feel works with just one class. This is the case with my current PC, who is a fighter 2 / ancients paladin 18.

She has both the Dueling and Defense fighting styles, Action Surge 1/rest, Second Wind 1/rest, plus all the paladin goodies except for the last ASI/feat slot (which I just didn't feel I needed, since her two main stats are already maxed out) and the 20th level ancients feature, which I didn't find that exciting to begin with.

Her backstory is that she's a half-elven bastard who couldn't inherit her mother's title, so she joined the local order of knights. Later on, she wandered into a primeval grove in a forest and came out having taken an oath to the ancient guardians of the grove.

My character is a beast. She has high AC and high attack/damage output. I don't feel like I've lost anything important by taking 2 levels of fighter instead of sticking with paladin all the way to 20.

 

[Celtavian]

A bit of a role-play and a bit of maximizing power and a bit making a character mechanically interesting. Recently I wanted to make a sort Servant of Hell that was like a Hell Knight. I made him a mix of warlock and paladin. I felt being able to wield a sword effectively and smite combined with the Eldritch Blast abilities of the warlock would make a cool Hell Knight. I plan to write an Invocation that allows him to change his Eldritch Blast into Hellfire that does fire and/or psychic damage.

I took Sorcerer (favored soul) and Rogue levels to create a magical assassin concept. I wanted multiple attacks from the favored soul sorcerer along with magical power for self-buffing and sneak attack from the rogue abilities. Given the rogue doesn't get multiple attacks, taking levels in a class that gives multiple attacks is necessary for the concept. The ability to self-buff, especially with quicken, gives that feel of him having powerful magical abilities to increase his combat abilities.

I find the multiclassinsg system in 5E to be one of the best I've seen in a while. It really allows you to mix and match class abilities to make some very interesting and powerful character concepts. Concepts that aren't encapsulated in a single class. I find I'm better able to create a concept I enjoy with by multiclassing.

I can't choose a single option. My best option is probably a mix of role-play and maximizing. I create a concept first, then I try to figure out how to best realize that concept mechanically and creatively.

 

[ccs]

Hiya!

In my game, I've never had a player MC his character since we started playing about a year ago. Actually, I've never had a player even consider a MC character for more than about 3 seconds...and that was only recently, one time.

The problem my group and I have with MC'ing since 3.x days is that you are "never multi-class". You are a guy with two classes (or three, or whatever). You aren't a Fighter/Magic-User...you are a Fighter and a Magic-User. You aren't a Cleric/Thief...you are a Cleric and a Thief. It's hard to really explain what I mean.

In 1e, you could be a Fighter/MU/Cleric...you'd be 1/1/1. As you gained XP, you generally divided that XP evenly, but it didnt' have to be. If the DM felt you did nothing but Fight, only casting Cure Light Wounds once (no other cleric spell, no turning undead, no MU spells or magic item use, etc), the DM generally made you put more into Fighter (so if you got 500xp he might make you put 400xp into Fighter, 75xp into Cleric and 25xp into MU).

In 5e, the very first time you play your character...you are ONE CLASS. Period. Even if you 'want' to play a Fighter/Wizard. Your characters background story and all that will have ZERO effect on your actual capabilities as far as Wizard goes. You can't really have a bg that has your characters father as an accomplished warrior who taught you the dance of steel every other day, and have a mother Magic User who always dragged you away from your work out to teach you the ways of magic...both parents vying for your affection and time. When the DM says "You are all in a bar...", and you all introduce yourselves, you are stuck with "I'm a Fighter". You can't say "I'm a F/MU", because you aren't. As you gain XP, eventually you will hit 'next level'. At that point you have to decide which class you want to advance in. This gives the feeling that all the fighting or all the casting you had done for the last half-dozen sessions is useless; you didn't learn a dang thing in that class. So...you were really "never a Fighter" if you advance as a MU, and you were never "really a MU" if you advance as a Fighter. If you did/were...surely you would have learned something, right? Nope. One or the other.

This disconnect between character, actions/rp, and mechanics has pretty much made the 3.x/PF/4e and now 5e "multiclassing" a bust for us. In the immortal words of Mr.Horse..."Hmmm....hmmm...uh huh....hmmm..... Nope. No sir! I don't like it!".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

So what's stopping your group from simply changing the MC rules to a more 1e style?

 

[Celtavian]

Figured I would see people complaining about no middle option. I'd have worded the question something like... "what -primarily- drives you to multiclass?" . With roleplaying taking precedent over mechanics if you MUST choose a both answer. Let's be real here, there's a specific reason you are taking that new class and this being a subjective medium that D&D is, it's going to be either for the benefits of mechanics or the roleplaying aspect. Can't quantify a 50/50 answer with subjective thoughts about a DM style /Campaign/ what classes and races are allows/ what the tone of the campaign is, etc etc. I'd be literally an impossible task to give a 50-50 both answer. There's a primary reason about why you were -first- driven to that particular choice to multiclass.

What if it changes each time? What if it is 50/50? You do realize that many of us that multiclass plan the character out before we even start the game. We don't say get to 3rd level and go, "Gee, I'd like some warlock levels." We plan the character out, some of us for all 20 levels. We plan what we are going to take at what level. I plan to start off with one level of paladin, then I plan to take three levels of warlock, then I plan to go to level 6 paladin. Then I think will take more levels of warlock to get these abilities. I plan to write an Invocation to make my eldritch blast do fire damage and run it by the DM. My plan is so by the time my character reaches a certain level, he will be able to do the things I envision him doing.

It may start off like this. I want a character like a Hell Knight. I want him to have heavy armor and a huge sword, but also be able to fire hellfire blasts. At the same time I want him to be mechanically powerful because what's the point of being a Hell Knight if you're not a badass. Then you try to figure how to make him equally as effective with the sword and blasting. Do you want to take Blade Pact and go for the Warlock invocation that allows him to do his charisma damage or do you want to go for the Improved Divine Smite? Which would better emulate a Hell Knight.

Those of us that like multiclassing spend a lot of time developing a concept and pouring over the books to determine what would look cool and be mechanically effective at the same time with equal weight given to each.

Your choices imply that a person must either maximize damage or abilities or focus totally on concept absent mechanical effectiveness. That is not attractive to quite a few of us that want to multiclass. We want to bring to life a cool role-play concept that is mechanically effective. We spend a lot of time working to balance both the role-play and min-max aspects of the character. That usually works out to about a 50-50 situation with the role-play versus min-maxing. It also takes a lot of research into how abilities work. Sometimes it leads to a weak character during the early levels, but a very strong character in later levels. If the concept is important to the player, he'll tough out the weakness until the character becomes both cool and powerful.

 

[Evenglare]

If you plan out your character many levels before you even get there it's mechanic that drive you. There's absolutely NO way you would know what your character would be subject to. That's an easy one. Your playing mechanically, end of story. If you have all your levels planned out lol. That's almost not worth commenting on lmao. My choices do NOT imply either or, look up primary in the dictionary. It's the first reason you plan on multiplclassing. 50-50 situation is impossible if you know even a modicum on ANY sort of math beyond algebra. Too many variables to even process. It's impossible.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

So what's stopping your group from simply changing the MC rules to a more 1e style?

Nothing...other than that it's probably not worth the work. Honestly, we don't need MC'ing. With the Archtypes and Backgrounds we can pretty much create whatever we want. I (we) would rather put effort into creating a new Archtype/Background than tinker with the MC rules. If we *did* really want to...it'd probably be something like just take two or three classes; you are 1/1 or 1/1/1 until you get enough XP to hit 2/2 or 2/2/2 (re: 4th level, or 6th...so, 2,700xp and..whatever you need to hit 6th). Then the character advances to 2/2 or 2/2/2. Repeat for 3/3 or 3/3/3 (6th or 9th level XP needed), then 4/4 (8th) or 4/4/4 (12th), 5/5 (10th) or 5/5/5 (15th), then 6/6 (12th), or 6/6/6 (18th). Once a character with three classes hits 18, we'd probably just stop. So no levels above 6/6/6 for triple-MC (and nothing above 10/10 for two-MC).

But, as I said, we wouldn't likely need those types of houserules anyway. Archtypes and Backgrounds will do pretty much anything we want for our game.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Celtavian]

If you plan out your character many levels before you even get there it's mechanic that drive you. There's absolutely NO way you would know what your character would be subject to. That's an easy one. Your playing mechanically, end of story. If you have all your levels planned out lol. That's almost not worth commenting on lmao. My choices do NOT imply either or, look up primary in the dictionary. It's the first reason you plan on multiplclassing. 50-50 situation is impossible if you know even a modicum on ANY sort of math beyond algebra. Too many variables to even process. It's impossible.

You did not offer mechanics. You offered a maximizing choice. The mechanics do not necessarily maximize the character. So it's not an easy choice. LMAO. If you had an option that listed, "Mechanical options for concept", then it would work. You don't have that option. Even someone with a basic understanding of polls would have offered that option. LOL.

You have role-play, maximizing, and I don't multiclass. Yet the mechanical choices I make don't maximize the build.

Where is your "mechanics to create a character concept"? LOL. Gee, you couldn't figure out to add the option. I guess this thread is barely worth responding to. The OP doesn't even understand that mechanical choices don't always lead to maximizing. LOL. Why did you even make the poll? Even someone with a modicum of understanding of ENGLISH beyond the elementary school level would make a person realize that maximizing and game mechanics are not always synonymous. That you can in fact make mechanical choices that aren't maximized to create a character concept, yet still be effective, even if not maximally effective. LMAO.

Even more ridiculous is that a person would attempt to declare that a poll based on something subjective like "Why do you multiclass?" would require math beyond basic to begin with. It's a subjective poll which no logical basis other than the subjective opinion of the person answering the poll. Yet you're expecting your answers to cover that spectrum? LMAO. Anyone creating a poll for something subjective like "Why do I multilclass" would know to provide more options like "mechanics for reasons other than maximizing." Otherwise the poll is just a troll attempt to prove a personal point. LOL. How can you not tell the difference between a person that says "I do it for role-play reasons and I don't care how effective I am" and a person that says "I want to maximize the most I can get and I don't care about role-play reasons" and a person that says "I want to make this cool role-play concept as effective as possible" giving equal weight to both. I guess the possibility that a person can give equal weight to both is impossible in your extremely scientific poll because I can't prove that my subjective reasons are exactly 50-50. LMAO.

How does that type of response go over with you? You feel like being a rude jerk, you get that type of response. Tiresome people creating subjective polls then responding as thought their poll is some sort of scientifically precise tool are ridiculous. Bottom line is your options don't cover why people multiclass. Get over yourself.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

While I can't say I approve of Celtavian's tone, I generally agree with his gist.

You, Evenglare, say things like "primary" reason--but as I've tried to assert, I do not have a primary reason. I have several values--in the philosophical sense--that drive my choices with regard to playing, and creating, a character. As stated above, I care about:
* A mathematical evaluation of the character, or more succinctly, "how it works." Reaching for this value requires thinking about the numerical/statistical elements of a character.
* The procedure involved in playing the character, or more succinctly "how it plays." Reaching for this value requires thinking about the actions I as a player will be allowed (rules) or obliged (good practice) to perform.
* The narrative or "roleplay" of the character, before and after, or more succinctly "what it means." Reaching for this value requires thinking about the kinds of stories that interest me, and the challenges I hope to face.

These three values are largely distinct from each other. Numerical, or "charop," considerations are valuable because I want to "win," I want to do well at whatever it is I choose to do. Procedural considerations are valuable because they exhibit "Goldilocks zone" behavior; if I don't have enough things to occupy my mind, I get bored, while if I have too many, I get lost, so it is valuable to find a "golden mean" between the two. Narrative considerations are valuable because I find it difficult to play characters I'm not already well-invested in, and treat my characters as a form of self-expression (whether showing my own self, or exploring another).

These values cannot be placed in a clear hierarchy. I cannot simply say "a small increase in success is better than a small increase in narrative value," nor can I say the reverse. There may be multiple points of acceptability or even multiple "awesome" points, with different focuses on each. I have, in the past, been willing to give up a little bit of the narrative I had in mind for a character--perhaps to deal with a serious flaw elsewhere, such as overcomplicated mechanics or dangerous numerical weaknesses. But I have also been willing to do exactly the opposite thing when it seemed reasonable and appropriate for my character to do so. For example, when creating a 4e character (as a personal exercise--I had no prospects of a game on the horizon, so I thought it might help tide me over to consider possible character ideas), I asked on a different forum whether it was a serious issue to start the game with a 16 in my character's primary stats (Str and Cha) rather than an 18, as recommended by most charop guides. The general consensus was: you can totally do that. You'll be giving up some effectiveness, and you might want to consider options X/Y/Z to counter that, but you won't suffer too much for it. My main reason for asking was that I really hate the "paladunce" concept, and wanted to play a character who had generally decent stats across the board (except Dex, because some kind of sacrifice had to be made).

Yet at other times, I have given up narrative elements of a character in order to pursue enough effectiveness for it to actually work. For example, I wanted to make a character that reflected a particular way of looking at Merlin--that is, both a "Wizard" and a "Druid"--and again sought out the advice of fellow players for how to go about that. I don't remember the exact details now, but more than once I retooled the narrative parts of the concept because I wasn't happy with how effective the character would be.

Similarly, if/when I play 13th Age for the first time, I'm strongly considering the Monk class--not because it has particularly good story (it's par for the course as far as Monks go), nor because it's especially powerful (I honestly don't know if it is or not), but because of the nature of its mechanics. It's a beautifully fluid-yet-fixed system: you know a set of moves whose official terms I forget, but which are basically "openings," "main attacks," and "finishers." You can always use an opening, even if you used one last turn; main attacks can only happen after you've used an opening; finishers can only happen after you've used a main attack. Each "discipline" you learn includes one of each type--but you don't have to use them in that sequence! Having actually checked the book now, you could have both the Claws of the Panther form (what I called "discipline" above) and the Dance of the Mantis form, and use the opening, "flow" (not "main"), and finishing attack from either one at any stage of the fight. You can mix and match openings, flows, and finishers for each form you know--which, even if you only know 3-4 forms, results in a staggering array of possible actions while keeping round-by-round choice fairly simple. It's a brilliant design and I think it would be both very natural and very engaging to play.

Each time I attempt to create or play a character--even one I've already been playing for a while--the scales of these values may shift and change. What motivates my choice in one context may be exactly why I don't make a particular choice in another context. That's why I cannot vote. Because there is no way, even statistically, for me to say that I initially multiclass because of X, or typically, or primarily, or any other term: all three reasons are relevant, and their relevance may shift and change even in a single sitting, let alone over the course of an entire campaign or character's life or from one campaign to the next!

Hiya!

What's going on? Pretty much the same thing as you choosing to MC because you want to. You do it because it's fun for you. A DM saying no to MC'ing is doing it because he/she will enjoy DM'ing more without having to "worry" about MC'ing. Kinda like feats. I don't allow MC'ing or Feats in my 5e game. What's going on? I don't like them. Lucky for me, neither do my players, but that's beside the point. Even if they did like them, I'd still disallow them. They just make the game "worse" for me.

But, as you said, different people like different things. My attitude is "I don't like MCing, so no MC'ing in my campaign". Simple.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Perhaps I'm reading into Arial Black's words, but I believe the more pertinent (if somewhat implicit) question was, "Why do your preferences as a player become relevant for restricting options available to your players when you are a DM?" (That is, "and therefore not facing the choice to multiclass or not, since you don't have a PC with which to do so.")

 

[Celtavian]

Ezekiel, normally I wouldn't respond in such a tone unless such a tone was used towards me.